Flashback to a few weeks ago when RFK's anti-water-floridation stance was once again in the news and countless people were ready to go to bat for him: "No, he's just removing the mandatory health experiment of fluoride in the water. If you want to go out and get fluoride supplements nobody will stop you".
Give it a few more weeks, and it will be banned from toothpastes too.
And then the goal posts will move again and people will defend it: “Well at least he’s not trying to ban toothpaste itself! Get a grip, libs!”
And then when he bans toothpaste: “You can get the topical treatment and a cleaning from the dentist if you want it so badly. Stop worrying so much!”
And then when he bans the topical treatment at the dentist: “It’s a logical move. Look, it’s not like he’s jailing dentists. You can still waste your money visiting your dentist if you think it’s going to help your teeth, LOL!”
I think there is anger at the left for oppression during COVID. Many rules. Irrationality. Save 1 COVID death, cause 2 suicides from isolation, raped the economy, as a price, was it worth it? Resentment towards the medical establishment as heavy-handed and out of touch with common sense. Trump ascension now, as before, is the realization of this unheard anger and resentment, something he seems to be brilliant at connecting with. Thusly it's not about, "is this rational or not". It's not rational. It's anger, it's payback. Main point is the left, the party of compassion, ought to re-evaluate whether it's compassionate towards all parties in all contexts. Same for medicine.
> I think there is anger at the left for oppression during COVID.
Are we remembering the same history? Because I clearly remember COVID lockdowns and measures implemented and supported by the president in power at the time: Trump.
> out of touch with common sense
It is out of touch with science and reality too.
That people are believe this pseudo science is not a failing of the left, it is manufactured by the right.
Although you are downvoted, there is a point; I wonder how many products are created just to be used as waste management when creating other products from oil
I suppose many products were initially invented to get value or of an underutilized by-product, but as soon as there's a market and people want to buy it, the byproduct is no longer waste.
Why is it that when people speak about Native Americans using every part of the buffalo it’s with a positive connotation but when modern day organizations figure out how to turn waste products into something useful it’s spoken with disdain?
I am generally anti corporation but whenever I hear about a company turning something that used to be a waste stream into something useful, it gives me a nice dopamine hit to see capitalism actually working as intended
Because they're not actually making it useful, they are merely trying to convince the general public that it is, or at least not harmful, so they can blithely dump away.
Another interesting example is refined salt. Traditionally, when salt is mined or derived from seawater, it contains a multitude of trace minerals that are often beneficial and nutritious. It is this payload of minerals that has contributed to the excellent reputation of salt over the millennia.
However, now the salt company will refine the hell out of the salt, turning it into pure white NaCl table salt. Then, they turn around and sell all the trace minerals and nutrients to supplement companies which manufacture nutritional supplements and derive extra value from that surplus.
The general public is left with virtually worthless table salt that contains nothing but NaCl. This is why an excess of salt is harmful in your diet, because you're adding empty sodium without any fringe benefits!!!
Fluoride topically applied to teeth is to put back fluoride that has been leeched out of the enamel. Swallowed fluoride is needed to make the enamel in the first place. I'm not sure how helpful it is to adults, but kids certainly need it.
This is completely incorrect. Fluoride is not a component of native enamel, nor is it recognized as an essential nutrient in any way.
Topically-applied fluoride converts hydroxyapatite in enamel into hydroxyfluorapatite, a harder substance that resists bacterial decay. It has no benefits for the rest of your body, and when intake becomes excessive it can interfere with skeletal development and cause brittle bones.
Fluoride belongs on your teeth, not in your stomach.
https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/about/about-dental-fluorosis... claims consumed fluoride is used when first growing teeth, which occurs beneath the gums and where no topical fluoride is applied. This also seems to be how fluorosis occurs, from excessive consumption of fluoride, with too much being digested and too much ending up in tooth enamel.
But further research points to https://www.adaq.org.au/Web/Web/Profession/Fluoridation_FAQs... , where item 4 indicates that, while true that fluoride is used when enamel is first formed, that it does little regarding cavities as the vast bulk of the work is done topically as you say, after the tooth erupts.
I can't find anything stating fluoride is required by children to form tooth enamel, or what happens when fluoride is topically applied but somehow not swallowed.
Fluoride on teeth is a bit like making gorilla glass - infusing atoms into a surface with different bond strengths and lengths to make a material that’s more durable than the original.
You're the one who is incorrect here. We do, in fact, consume fluoride all the time in the food we eat and it has a role in bone and tooth health. The vast majority of people get more than enough in their regular diet (brewed tea has a fair amount) but there are probably extreme cases where a supplement might be required. Banning them is dumb and confidently posting about things you don't know for sure is worse.
Confidently posting links without reading or understanding them is worst of all. Your source does not remotely contradict my point. This says that, while we harmlessly consume incidental fluorine from the environment all the time, there is no recommended or minimum intake. That’s because it is not an essential nutrient. Its only use mentioned here is the prevention of dental caries, and then only when applied topically.
There is no such thing as “enough” consumed fluorine. Consuming fluorine bypasses your teeth, the only place it does any good. Enamel is not generated with fluorine in it; it must be applied afterward for anticavity benefits.
There appear to be multiple sources stating that mild fluorosis is associated with increased resistance to cavities, e.g. [0], which seems inconsistent with your statement.
we moved to a rural area in 2005 with clean, but unfluoridated well water. had a son. brushes twice daily for 2 minutes a time like everyone else in the house.
he had an excessive amount of cavities and the dentist did not use any supplementation. This was painful and unnecessary for my son (we stopped using that dentist when it was clear this isn't 'normal').
i realize this is n=1. but apparently calgary [0] also realized this was having an opposite effect as well. (yes i realize this is slightly different than supplementation in the parent article but the supplementation would have saved my kid from unnecessary cavities.)
absolutely. but i think there's at least some evidence that lack of appropriate fluoridation is beneficial. certainly in my anecdotal example (ofc, i didn't grow up in this town and every town in the US has wildly different fluoride levels in the municipal water systems).
Had to look this up because I got the impression that they banned flouride for toothpaste and mouthwash too, this is not the case obviously. The recent FDA move targets prescription fluoride supplements that are swallowed, such as tablets and drops.
I see no reason to ban those even if you have strong reservations about fluoride in the water supply. Since this administration rarely functions on logic I expect they'll move to banning the toothpaste, mouthwash and the topical treatments in dental offices since this will be treated more like some kind of vindictive holy war rather than an attempt to improve public health in any rational manner.
I grew up drinking well water, and had an ever-growing mouthful of cavities. In junior high I had more teeth with fillings than without. That mercifully ended when the dentist prescribed daily fluoride tablets for me and my brother.
Anyone who thinks banning fluoride is a good idea, you don't have a single clue what you're talking about. Not one.
It feels as though we are on the path toward the government endorsing essential oils, homeopathy, psychics and Ouija Boards. All because one person perceives “science” as a political opponent.
I have little doubt that by the time this is over, they’ll be teaching public school kids that WiFi causes cancer, the earth is flat, psychic powers work, vibrating crystals can cure diseases, the moon landings were fake, and professional wrestling is real.
I actually miss the GOP of the 90s, who just wanted to teach that the Earth was 6000 years old and that Jesus rode dinosaurs.
Do you feel the same way about European countries who don't add fluoride to water? Do you think we should consume shampoo and soap because it's beneficial when used topically?
That exact strain of provincial European quackiness is how you get homeopathy and alternative medicines covered under public health insurance and paid for by tax dollars in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, etc.
At least France grappled with it ~5 years ago and removed it IIRC. Still being debated in Germany.
The remineralization of tooth enamel through biologically active concentrations and well understood dose-response effects is actually quite different from having water remember inert substances diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit.
They put way too much fluoride in water for it to be homeopathy. For one, you can actually detect the levels, whereas homeopathy literally has no molecules of the active substance (the water "remembers" being near it).
Flouridating drinking water is like homeopathy because it's like having hemorrhoids and you go to a physician, who hands you Preparation H and instructs you to shampoo with it twice a day. That is what it's like to flouridate drinking water. Shampooing your hair with Preparation H.
I'm not sure if this is directly relevant, but at least calm down about flouride: https://m.xkcd.com/463/
Is that person RFK because it isn't Trump. Trump doesn't give a shit about science, he cares about support. That's why Democrat castoffs (RFK after being antivax was no longer a left wing position and Gabbard for having the audacity to oppose the Clinton machine) found a home under his tent.
Politically, those were great moves. He was able to pull outsider figures from the center-left away from the party that had tripled down on party loyalists.
RFK was a prominent Democrat for for his entire life and was considered/offered various political positions by Democrats which he declined to continue his environmental work. He ran as a Democrat in the primaries less than a year ago.
RFK didn't change his views, some significant world event happened and the Democratic party turned against the medical, health and food skeptics that they previously embraced. RFK didn't move right, MAGA recruited the skeptics of the establishment. RFK being am example of the previously mentioned health establishment skeptic and Gabbard being the foreign policy skeptic. Those positions pre-MAGA were under the Democratic tent.
Have you ever met a raw food afficianado who is antivax and avoids red dye #whatever? That person used to vote for Democrats, now they're MAGA. They aren't Republicans, they're MAGA.
Flashback to a few weeks ago when RFK's anti-water-floridation stance was once again in the news and countless people were ready to go to bat for him: "No, he's just removing the mandatory health experiment of fluoride in the water. If you want to go out and get fluoride supplements nobody will stop you".
Give it a few more weeks, and it will be banned from toothpastes too.
And then the goal posts will move again and people will defend it: “Well at least he’s not trying to ban toothpaste itself! Get a grip, libs!”
And then when he bans toothpaste: “You can get the topical treatment and a cleaning from the dentist if you want it so badly. Stop worrying so much!”
And then when he bans the topical treatment at the dentist: “It’s a logical move. Look, it’s not like he’s jailing dentists. You can still waste your money visiting your dentist if you think it’s going to help your teeth, LOL!”
I think there is anger at the left for oppression during COVID. Many rules. Irrationality. Save 1 COVID death, cause 2 suicides from isolation, raped the economy, as a price, was it worth it? Resentment towards the medical establishment as heavy-handed and out of touch with common sense. Trump ascension now, as before, is the realization of this unheard anger and resentment, something he seems to be brilliant at connecting with. Thusly it's not about, "is this rational or not". It's not rational. It's anger, it's payback. Main point is the left, the party of compassion, ought to re-evaluate whether it's compassionate towards all parties in all contexts. Same for medicine.
> I think there is anger at the left for oppression during COVID.
Are we remembering the same history? Because I clearly remember COVID lockdowns and measures implemented and supported by the president in power at the time: Trump.
> out of touch with common sense
It is out of touch with science and reality too.
That people are believe this pseudo science is not a failing of the left, it is manufactured by the right.
I was under the impression that in general you want Fluoride to be topically applied to teeth, and not swallowed. Perhaps I was misinformed.
[flagged]
Although you are downvoted, there is a point; I wonder how many products are created just to be used as waste management when creating other products from oil
I suppose many products were initially invented to get value or of an underutilized by-product, but as soon as there's a market and people want to buy it, the byproduct is no longer waste.
Low fat milk is the classic example.
Why is it that when people speak about Native Americans using every part of the buffalo it’s with a positive connotation but when modern day organizations figure out how to turn waste products into something useful it’s spoken with disdain?
I am generally anti corporation but whenever I hear about a company turning something that used to be a waste stream into something useful, it gives me a nice dopamine hit to see capitalism actually working as intended
Because they're not actually making it useful, they are merely trying to convince the general public that it is, or at least not harmful, so they can blithely dump away.
Another interesting example is refined salt. Traditionally, when salt is mined or derived from seawater, it contains a multitude of trace minerals that are often beneficial and nutritious. It is this payload of minerals that has contributed to the excellent reputation of salt over the millennia.
However, now the salt company will refine the hell out of the salt, turning it into pure white NaCl table salt. Then, they turn around and sell all the trace minerals and nutrients to supplement companies which manufacture nutritional supplements and derive extra value from that surplus.
The general public is left with virtually worthless table salt that contains nothing but NaCl. This is why an excess of salt is harmful in your diet, because you're adding empty sodium without any fringe benefits!!!
Fluoride topically applied to teeth is to put back fluoride that has been leeched out of the enamel. Swallowed fluoride is needed to make the enamel in the first place. I'm not sure how helpful it is to adults, but kids certainly need it.
This is completely incorrect. Fluoride is not a component of native enamel, nor is it recognized as an essential nutrient in any way.
Topically-applied fluoride converts hydroxyapatite in enamel into hydroxyfluorapatite, a harder substance that resists bacterial decay. It has no benefits for the rest of your body, and when intake becomes excessive it can interfere with skeletal development and cause brittle bones.
Fluoride belongs on your teeth, not in your stomach.
https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/about/about-dental-fluorosis... claims consumed fluoride is used when first growing teeth, which occurs beneath the gums and where no topical fluoride is applied. This also seems to be how fluorosis occurs, from excessive consumption of fluoride, with too much being digested and too much ending up in tooth enamel.
But further research points to https://www.adaq.org.au/Web/Web/Profession/Fluoridation_FAQs... , where item 4 indicates that, while true that fluoride is used when enamel is first formed, that it does little regarding cavities as the vast bulk of the work is done topically as you say, after the tooth erupts.
I can't find anything stating fluoride is required by children to form tooth enamel, or what happens when fluoride is topically applied but somehow not swallowed.
Fluoride on teeth is a bit like making gorilla glass - infusing atoms into a surface with different bond strengths and lengths to make a material that’s more durable than the original.
I guess you could think of both as “alloys”, but with ionic bonds instead of metallic bonds.
I’m sure there are at least six ways this isn’t quite accurate, but it’s an interesting analogy at least.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-HealthProfessiona...
You're the one who is incorrect here. We do, in fact, consume fluoride all the time in the food we eat and it has a role in bone and tooth health. The vast majority of people get more than enough in their regular diet (brewed tea has a fair amount) but there are probably extreme cases where a supplement might be required. Banning them is dumb and confidently posting about things you don't know for sure is worse.
Confidently posting links without reading or understanding them is worst of all. Your source does not remotely contradict my point. This says that, while we harmlessly consume incidental fluorine from the environment all the time, there is no recommended or minimum intake. That’s because it is not an essential nutrient. Its only use mentioned here is the prevention of dental caries, and then only when applied topically.
There is no such thing as “enough” consumed fluorine. Consuming fluorine bypasses your teeth, the only place it does any good. Enamel is not generated with fluorine in it; it must be applied afterward for anticavity benefits.
Do you have a credible source?
There appear to be multiple sources stating that mild fluorosis is associated with increased resistance to cavities, e.g. [0], which seems inconsistent with your statement.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK585039/
we moved to a rural area in 2005 with clean, but unfluoridated well water. had a son. brushes twice daily for 2 minutes a time like everyone else in the house.
he had an excessive amount of cavities and the dentist did not use any supplementation. This was painful and unnecessary for my son (we stopped using that dentist when it was clear this isn't 'normal').
i realize this is n=1. but apparently calgary [0] also realized this was having an opposite effect as well. (yes i realize this is slightly different than supplementation in the parent article but the supplementation would have saved my kid from unnecessary cavities.)
[0] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5224138/calgary-removed...
EDIT: clarity on 'supplementation'
Here in Europe we get our fluoride from our toohpaste. Was your sons toothpaste flourinated?
absolutely. but i think there's at least some evidence that lack of appropriate fluoridation is beneficial. certainly in my anecdotal example (ofc, i didn't grow up in this town and every town in the US has wildly different fluoride levels in the municipal water systems).
Nowadays you get way more sugar in, well, all and every product
Had to look this up because I got the impression that they banned flouride for toothpaste and mouthwash too, this is not the case obviously. The recent FDA move targets prescription fluoride supplements that are swallowed, such as tablets and drops.
I see no reason to ban those even if you have strong reservations about fluoride in the water supply. Since this administration rarely functions on logic I expect they'll move to banning the toothpaste, mouthwash and the topical treatments in dental offices since this will be treated more like some kind of vindictive holy war rather than an attempt to improve public health in any rational manner.
There are disorders where fluoride has collected in your bones and from what I understand that’s not only not a good idea but also fairly painful.
I grew up drinking well water, and had an ever-growing mouthful of cavities. In junior high I had more teeth with fillings than without. That mercifully ended when the dentist prescribed daily fluoride tablets for me and my brother.
Anyone who thinks banning fluoride is a good idea, you don't have a single clue what you're talking about. Not one.
Related:
Statewide fluoride ban for tap water passes in Florida
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43843547
It feels as though we are on the path toward the government endorsing essential oils, homeopathy, psychics and Ouija Boards. All because one person perceives “science” as a political opponent.
I hope they don't ban wifi https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/14dybf3/just_a_re...
I have little doubt that by the time this is over, they’ll be teaching public school kids that WiFi causes cancer, the earth is flat, psychic powers work, vibrating crystals can cure diseases, the moon landings were fake, and professional wrestling is real.
I actually miss the GOP of the 90s, who just wanted to teach that the Earth was 6000 years old and that Jesus rode dinosaurs.
Do you feel the same way about European countries who don't add fluoride to water? Do you think we should consume shampoo and soap because it's beneficial when used topically?
…yes?
That exact strain of provincial European quackiness is how you get homeopathy and alternative medicines covered under public health insurance and paid for by tax dollars in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, etc.
At least France grappled with it ~5 years ago and removed it IIRC. Still being debated in Germany.
Slippery slope.
> how you get homeopathy
Flouridating water supplies is more or less literally homeopathy!
The remineralization of tooth enamel through biologically active concentrations and well understood dose-response effects is actually quite different from having water remember inert substances diluted beyond Avogadro’s limit.
Bro I don’t know about you, but I haven’t got a lot of tooth enamel in my digestive tract, and I strive to keep it that way.
We’re all very lucky fluoridated water won’t grow tooth enamel in your digestive tract then, it has more than enough shit to deal with as is!
They put way too much fluoride in water for it to be homeopathy. For one, you can actually detect the levels, whereas homeopathy literally has no molecules of the active substance (the water "remembers" being near it).
Flouridating drinking water is like homeopathy because it's like having hemorrhoids and you go to a physician, who hands you Preparation H and instructs you to shampoo with it twice a day. That is what it's like to flouridate drinking water. Shampooing your hair with Preparation H.
I'm not sure if this is directly relevant, but at least calm down about flouride: https://m.xkcd.com/463/
Is that person RFK because it isn't Trump. Trump doesn't give a shit about science, he cares about support. That's why Democrat castoffs (RFK after being antivax was no longer a left wing position and Gabbard for having the audacity to oppose the Clinton machine) found a home under his tent.
Politically, those were great moves. He was able to pull outsider figures from the center-left away from the party that had tripled down on party loyalists.
RFK is not Democrat in any reasonable sense and wasn't for years. RFK is literally Secretary of Health and Human Services appointed by Trump.
And RFK is perfectly matching the rest of Trumps and republican party policies regardless where you look.
RFK was a prominent Democrat for for his entire life and was considered/offered various political positions by Democrats which he declined to continue his environmental work. He ran as a Democrat in the primaries less than a year ago.
RFK didn't change his views, some significant world event happened and the Democratic party turned against the medical, health and food skeptics that they previously embraced. RFK didn't move right, MAGA recruited the skeptics of the establishment. RFK being am example of the previously mentioned health establishment skeptic and Gabbard being the foreign policy skeptic. Those positions pre-MAGA were under the Democratic tent.
Have you ever met a raw food afficianado who is antivax and avoids red dye #whatever? That person used to vote for Democrats, now they're MAGA. They aren't Republicans, they're MAGA.
[dead]
bootlicking only if they are coated in fluoride
[dead]